Make the call

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Of course not, there's no shot. Foul on B-2.



...

So we are in agreement that just because you blew the whistle late it doesn't mean that B2's shot still counts. You are enforcing the foul that occurred when A1 had the ball. You just had a (exteeeemely) patient whistle.

But patient whistles have nothing to do with the original scenario. In the original scenario a foul clearly occurred while A1 was still dribbling. Allowing A1 to continue dribbling and then score a basket while still enforcing the foul is a rules interpretation.

If you try to explain to your supervisor or a coach that you allowed the basket due to a patient whistle you will not have a leg to stand on.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we are in agreement that just because you blew the whistle late it doesn't mean that B2's shot still counts.

Yes, you keep harping on that, but I never disagreed with that (nor would I). This wasn't about that.

But patient whistles have nothing to do with the original scenario. In the original scenario a foul clearly occurred while A1 was still dribbling. Allowing A1 to continue dribbling and then score a basket while still enforcing the foul is a rules interpretation.

And here is where I claim "inconsistency." I'm looking for solid reason why this only applies to certain infractions. (At least Snaqs made a valid attempt at it.)

If you try to explain to your supervisor or a coach that you allowed the basket due to a patient whistle you will not have a leg to stand on.

Likely true. That doesn't mean I'm not going to question it in this forum.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...
And here is where I claim "inconsistency." I'm looking for solid reason why this only applies to certain infractions. (At least Snaqs made a valid attempt at it.)

...

"Patient whistle" is a philosophy. It's not a mechanic or a rule. It has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about a "withheld whistle". And "withhold whistle" is found in 10.4.1 and applies to unsporting technical fouls and the delayed enforcement of the infraction.

And you haven't been questioning, you've been telling how it should be enforce. But when asked to explain your stance you never gave a clear answer. You said:

...To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

Do you really think that's an acceptable answer for a coach or a supervisor?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"Patient whistle" is a philosophy. It's not a mechanic or a rule. It has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about a "withheld whistle". And "withhold whistle" is found in 10.4.1 and applies to unsporting technical fouls and the delayed enforcement of the infraction.

Exactly, a "patient" whistle is used to determine whether specific contact is a foul. I can't think of a single intentional foul I've ever seen where a patient whistle was required.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Do you really think that's an acceptable answer for a coach or a supervisor?

I don't know why you keep harping on this. Asked and answered, counselor.

I should've gone with our standard line, "In my judgment..."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I don't know why you keep harping on this.

Because when the coach sends the tape in and it's clear that A1 took two dribbles after B1 pushed A2, and you counted the basket, you're going to have to answer to your supervisor.

You'll have one of three problems.

1. Integrity.
2. Judgment.
3. Rules knowledge.

The fourth option is that the supervisor will agree with Camron's expansion of the TF case play to apply to intentional fouls.

I would much rather have a supervisor tell me I should go with Camron's reasoning than explain to me why my rules knowledge needs some work.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would much rather have a supervisor tell me I should go with Camron's reasoning than explain to me why my rules knowledge needs some work.

+1

When I finally have this play in five to seven years, I'll know what to do.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

+1

When I finally have this play in five to seven years, I'll know what to do.

You've never had an intentional foul on a break-away?

I just had one in camp 2 weeks ago. Had at least 2 last season. It is not uncommon.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I don't know why you keep harping on this. Asked and answered, counselor.

I should've gone with our standard line, "In my judgment..."

Again, what does judgement have to do with it? Intentional foul, 2 dribbles, shot, made basket. What is the ruling? It has already been determined that a foul has to be called and it has already been determined there were 2 dribbles before A1 began his try.

And notice, I've never once said your ruling is wrong. I've only said that you need to be able to explain it. And if you can't explain it here clearly and precisely with the help of the backspace key and delete button then you are going to have a real problem when you are on the court.

Every play I discuss on these boards I discuss as if I had to explain my decision to a coach or a supervisor. I'm in to real-world application. So that's why I keeping harping about it. Because calls you make reflect upon not only yourself, they also reflect upon the crew, the crew chief, and the supervisor.